Members might be interested

[Rik]

To read this thread on ThinkBroadband.

There's more on this story at El Reg.

[madasahatter]

Nice to see that Simon has denied no such deal has been struck with IDNet, and I hope it never happens.

This kind of thing is very shady. I wonder if the ISPs that have already struck deals will be informing their customers of this? An opt out is mentioned, but how well the "opt out" be publicised?

Things that make you go hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm eh? 

[Rik]

I'd regard such a deal as grounds to migrate (unless, of course, everyone had already signed up to it...).

[madasahatter]

That's the problem isn't it? Where do you migrate to if all ISPs sign up? What choice would you have then?

Can't see that happening myself, but hey - who knows

[Rik]

I don't think it would happen, but it's certainly a concern.

[madasahatter]

As has been said before, the ISPs with totally unrealistic subsription structures will be the main ones to go for this, but then if it does generate a decent revenue stream, whos to say that some (less reputable than IDNet obviously) of the smaller ones won't see it as a cheap way of printing money for themselves?

Don't think it should be allowed myself until the ISP has informed EVERY customer by letter, and each customer then has the choice to opt in. This "opting out" lark is just relying on customer inertia, and we all know that many customers will just accept it.

Would be interesting to see a legal standpoint on this, because in effect, phorm will be snooping on your activities without any real security implications, though i guess that this has already been addressed, and some legal bigwigs somewhere are in possession of a few brown envelopes full of coloured paper 

[Rik]

The lawyers will just be warming up for a class action.

[somanyholes]

The only way they will be able to do this is via http based services. Just stick adblock plus on and away the adverts go ...

I bet 1/2 the adverts will be for the isp's own services ...

phorm sounds a lot like farm to me .... datamining bast*rds

[Rik]

The only way they will be able to do this is over my dead body.  

[somanyholes]

there would be a big mound of bodies thats for sure

[Gary]

Considering my waistline these days I would agree but as you say, at least Simon has shown his feelings over the matter, but what concerns  me is that as the bigger ISP's with all you can eat offers suck up customers will the smaller ISP's have to resort to this to keep their heads above water

[Rik]

Time will tell, Gary, but look at the growth that we have seen in IDNet in the past few months. Every one of those new customers could have got a cheaper deal somewhere, so there still seems to be a market for quality, thankfully.

[somanyholes]

i may be wrong about this kill but I think the cap that idnet enforce gives them advantage over the large ones who don't have caps, (preparing to be corrected)

[Rik]

I agree with you. IDNet doesn't attract the 'eat all you can' consumers, so it's not going to appeal to the larger companies in the way that Pipex etc did.

[madasahatter]

i may be wrong about this kill but I think the cap that idnet enforce gives them advantage over the large ones who don't have caps, (preparing to be corrected)

You may be right (that makes a change  ). However, most of the big ISPs pull people in by calling their products unlimited, when we all know that they are anything but. All ISPs have caps in one form or another, be it an actual published cap, or a FUP etc, and I think many more people are getting wise to that, so that "advantage" is, to my mind at least, rapidly dissapearing

[Rik]

Hopefully, we are moving towards an era of openness and clear contracts... 

[madasahatter]

I taste ham - I wonder why? 

[Rik]

Because Sue has been bacon today?

[Gary]

i may be wrong about this kill but I think the cap that idnet enforce gives them advantage over the large ones who don't have caps, (preparing to be corrected)

That's what I am hoping for myself, all you can eat types don't even look at idnet thankfully and as Rik has said the customer base has grown a lot, it shows the market does need quality over quantity 

[Gary]

Because Sue has been bacon today?

I'm not sure many other ISP members could cope with that statement anyway Rik 

[madasahatter]

Because Sue has been bacon today?

what is she usually then Rik? 

[Rik]

 

I'm not sure many other ISP members could cope with that statement anyway Rik 

I like to keep on my trotters, Gary.

[Rik]

what is she usually then Rik? 

[madasahatter]

Seems like it's been going on for a while with a certain (dis)reputable ISP:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/bt_phorm_121media_summer_2007/

[Rik]

I saw that earlier. 

[madasahatter]

It's ceratinly an interesting read, and does make you wonder what is going on behind the scenes that you don't know about, but then again I suppose its like a lot of things - most people wouldn't even notice....

[Rik]

No, as things stand, you'd have to be looking for this. Which makes you wonder whether the Data Protection Act has been breached and whether using OpenDNS would overcome the issue.

[madasahatter]

The data protection angle is something I've wondered about since this idea came up - not been able to find out much about it though, but in effect, the ISP is using data in a way that has not been agreed to. There may well be some lawyers working on this right now.

[Rik]

That's my thought, certainly the ICO should be looking into it.

[Gary]

I saw that earlier. 

I notice it says  "Phorm chief executive Kent Ertegrul has claimed he is in talks with every UK ISP" So does that mean he has been knocking on IDNets door and getting no reply since Simon has never heard of him seems like Phorm trying to sell itself from a universal perspective to make us happy that all ISP's will use them.

[Rik]

I'm sure you're right, Gary.

[kinmel]

To read this thread on ThinkBroadband.

There's more on this story at El Reg.

if only these sites read IDNetters regularly they could have carried this story 2 weeks ago.

[Rik]

You expect me to remember posts!!   

[madasahatter]

Update on this story here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_broadband_isp_targets/

Interesting that the Sky spokesman talks about only implementing a solution that uses data in a way that safeguards privacy. Surely, this whole thing is, by its very nature, an invasion of privacy?

[Gary]

Update on this story here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_broadband_isp_targets/

Interesting that the Sky spokesman talks about only implementing a solution that uses data in a way that safeguards privacy. Surely, this whole thing is, by its very nature, an invasion of privacy?

Sadly Mad, the term invasion of privacy is just that theses days, a term but with no actual practice behind it

[madasahatter]

Sadly Mad, the term invasion of privacy is just that theses days, a term but with no actual practice behind it

Unless you've got money that is 

[Gary]

Unless you've got money that is 

I have 5p will that do

[Rik]

Sky doesn't understand the nature of privacy, it recently decided to sell on customer data unless they opted out - the notification wasn't terribly visible.

This quote amused me, "BT Retail's deal with Phorm does not affect BT's dozens of wholesale ISP customers, including PlusNet, which BT Group owns. A spokesman at the Sheffield-based provider could not be reached today, but product manager Ian Wild told subscribers in its forums: "We'd certainly do an opt-in or opt-out with something like this if we ever did it.

"Just to say again though, I'm pretty neutral from a product manager perspective as long as our customers are happy, and from a personal perspective it's something I might well choose to opt-out of unless the reason not to was very compelling.""

[Inactive]

Update on this story here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_broadband_isp_targets/

Interesting that the Sky spokesman talks about only implementing a solution that uses data in a way that safeguards privacy. Surely, this whole thing is, by its very nature, an invasion of privacy?

That is " Sky Speak " Mad, they use a different form of the English language to the rest of us, one that fit's their need greed.

[madasahatter]

This quote amused me, "BT Retail's deal with Phorm does not affect BT's dozens of wholesale ISP customers, including PlusNet, which BT Group owns. A spokesman at the Sheffield-based provider could not be reached today, but product manager Ian Wild told subscribers in its forums: "We'd certainly do an opt-in or opt-out with something like this if we ever did it.

"Just to say again though, I'm pretty neutral from a product manager perspective as long as our customers are happy, and from a personal perspective it's something I might well choose to opt-out of unless the reason not to was very compelling.""

Yes - that amused me too - in other words "don't you dare do it to me, but it's OK to do it to everyone else"

[Rik]

Exactly.

[madasahatter]

I think it should be an absolute requirement that the ISPs implementing any such system HAVE to inform their customers clearly and fully by letter, e-mail, or a clear announcement on their website (not hidden away in a corner somewhere), together with a clear, easy path to opt out. Again, Ofcom is conspicuous in its absence in this debate - they are supposed to be on our side, yet this measure is clearly not in our interest.

[Rik]

Again, Ofcom is conspicuous in its absence in this debate - they are supposed to be on our side, yet this measure is clearly not in our interest.

I sometimes think Ofcom exists merely for its own pleasure. 

[madasahatter]

Just another regulatory body with no real teeth, that doesn't do anything apart from sit around, put out soundbites, and get paid from taxes.

[Inactive]

Just another regulatory body with no real teeth, that doesn't do anything apart from sit around, put out soundbites, and get paid from taxes.

Agreed Mad, jobs for the boys ( girls ).

[Rik]

You left out "and makes decisions which are not in the public interest", eg auctioning off the bandwidth from the digital TV switchover, despite the broadcaster and industry generally wanting part of it retained for HD.

[madasahatter]

Agreed Mad, jobs for the boys ( girls ).

Why don't us living in the real world ever get offered these cushy numbers though In?  

[madasahatter]

You left out "and makes decisions which are not in the public interest", eg auctioning off the bandwidth from the digital TV switchover, despite the broadcaster and industry generally wanting part of it retained for HD.

Exactly. I know this is taking us away form the topic, but the whole digital switchover is so that the government can get its hands on pots of money selling off the bandwidth - nothing to do with improving the service whatsoever.

[Rik]

Ah, you've noticed that, have you? Better add your name to the list then.

[madasahatter]

Ah, you've noticed that, have you? Better add your name to the list then.

You're not reporting to the thought police are you? 

[Inactive]

Why don't us living in the real world ever get offered these cushy numbers though In? 

They are usually reserved for friends/relatives of MP's and financial supporters.

[Rik]

You're not reporting to the thought police are you? 

The use of my name and thought in the same sentence constitutes an oxymoron.

[somanyholes]

how it works (to a degree)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_documents/

[somanyholes]

like this bit in particular

We tapped Aaron Crane, The Register's Technical Overlord for help bending our puny scribe's brain around these diagrams. He said: "Looking at this makes me damn glad my own internet connection is funded by what I pay for it, so the ISP doesn't have to engage in this sort of shady practice merely to cover costs.

[Inactive]

Indeed...

[Rik]

Make that a unanimous three.

[madasahatter]

I'm disagreeing simply out of principle 

[Malc]

I'll sit on the fence

[Captain K]

Mind the splinters.

[Malc]

Better splinters than them pointy rusty iron thingys